DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

disallowance was unjustified. Revenue's Position: 1. Admissibility of "Gifts" as Business Expenditure Under Section 37: Section 37(1) of the Act provides

TRIVENI TURBINE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

disallowance under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1), the AO disallowed the deduction of 210,50,000 claimed under Section

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 201 of the Act. xvii. Accordingly, in the following kinds of cases, where the assessee has not been held to be in default under Chapter XVII-B, the necessary corollary would be that such payment cannot be Page 37 of 59 subject matter of any disallowance

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

disallowance under section 36(l)(iii) and section 37(1) Further, the assessing officer has alternately proposed to disallow interest

MOHAN MEAKIN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

disallowing deduction of bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) inasmuch as the same has been given during the course of its trade and had been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts. However, during the course of further arguments, learned counsel conceded that the requirement of Section 36(2), a pre-requisite for the application of Section

ACIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GREEN INFRA WIND FARM ASSETS LTD., GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as\nwell as section 37(1) of the Act by taking

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

disallowance in terms of section 143(1) of the Act. 18. Regarding the alternate argument of the Counsel for the assessee that the claim of the assessee is allowable under Section 37

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 1.3 Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of the aforesaid amount of loan written off as loss incidental to business under section 28 of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance

M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 1.3 Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of the aforesaid amount of loan written off as loss incidental to business under section 28 of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 1.3 Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of the aforesaid amount of loan written off as loss incidental to business under section 28 of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 1.3 Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of the aforesaid amount of loan written off as loss incidental to business under section 28 of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GREEN INFRA WIND FARM ASSET LTD., GURGAON

In the result, both captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as\nwell as section 37(1) of the Act by taking

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 194H of the act. Therefore, without looking into the alternative arguments raised by the learned authorised representative, this ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee and the disallowances directed to be deleted. 37

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 32 of the Act. Re: Ad-hoc disallowance of support service fees and reimbursement of expenses 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding ad-hoc disallowance to the extent :: Rs. 19,95,37